The Korean Commitment - "Now More Than Ever" AUTHOR Major Paul J. Chase, USMC CSC 1989 SUBJECT AREA - Foreign Policy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Title: The Korean Commitment - "NOW MORE THAN EVER" THESIS: The single most important factor in achieving national interests in the Republic of Korea is the maintenance of a healthy and vigorous alliance relationship. Although some people advocate a major withdrawl of United States military personnel from the Republic of Korea, we must con- tinue their presence since this area is so vital to our national interests. ISSUE: Alliance relationships are the cornerstone to the deterrence of hostile acts by aggressive nations. The military alliance relationship the United States of America enjoys with the Republic of Korea is significant and will remain crucial in the 1990's. The fact that the Republic of Korea is situated in such a strategic location coupled with the fact that she is emerging on the world economic scene with such great momentum is of national interest to the United States of America. The declining defense budget within the Department of Defense is driving some people toward the opinion that the number of United States military personnel stationed in the Republic of Korea should be drastically reduced if not totally eliminated. The United States of America has developed through the years a strategic policy of forward deployment and guick response as a deterrence to aggression by adversaries. The threat from communist North Korea is real and the Republic of Korea is severely incapable of defending herself against an attack without the support of the United States of America. CONCLUSION: Three key points must be considered prior to reducing the United States military presence in the Republic of Korea. The first is the negative signal it would send to our allies worldwide. Secondly, the North Koreans would view this as a weakening in the south and it could trigger an invasion. And finally, it would surely decrease the readiness posture of United States forces. We have a commitment to the Republic of Korea and if the need arises we must be prepared to guickly respond to the call. It has taken many years and many lives to build the foundation on which our alliance relationship now rests and to do anything to weaken this alliance would be a severe injustice to those who have gone before us and threaten the future generations. It is for these reasons that we must view with grave concern any attempt to soften our commitment to our strong ally the Republic of Korea. Thesis Statement The single most important factor in achieving national interests in the Republic of Korea is the maintenance of a healthy and vigorous alliance relationship. Although some people advocate a major withdrawl of United States military personnel from the Republic of Korea, we must continue their presence since this area is so vital to our national interests. OUTLINE I. ALLIANCE RELATIONSHIPS A. Cornerstone to deterrence B. Precedence set for future support C. Thesis statement D. Mutual Defense Agreement 1950 II. KOREAN CONFLICT A. June 1950 the stage is set B. Bonding and the ROK/US alliance III. STRATEGIC LOCATION A. Supports Japan Flank B. Guards SLOC's (Vladivostok) C. Last non-Communist country East Asia land mass D. Japan basing rights hinge on U.N. mission IV. ECONOMICS A. Industrial reorganization B. Major trading partner C. Top world economy by 1992 D. Olympic games testimony to success E. Finances alone don't solve defense problems V. DECLINING DEFENSE BUDGET A. Reducing personnel costs - "Burden sharing" B. Negative impact on world allies C. Alliances are cornerstone of deterrence D. Reduction of U.S. presence - "Severe injustice" VI. ANTI-AMERICAN SENTIMENT A. Media highlights student riots B. Population favors strong ROK/US alliance C. Alliance has stood the test of time VII. FUTURE MILITARY COMMITMENT A. 1990's need for caution B. U.S. readiness posture in region The Korean Commitment - "NOW MORE THAN EVER" The United States of America must foster strong alliance relationships in the Western Pacific region. History has proven the need to project military power beyond the boundries of the continental United States and recent developments in the Pacific Theater confirm the reguirement to bolster our alliances. Any trend toward isolationism would weaken ties with our allies and could prove to be disasterous to national interests. Alliance relationships are the cornerstone to the deter- rence of hostile acts by adversaries of both the United States of America and our allies in the Western Pacific region. Strength through unity sends a strong signal to all the Western Pacific countries that we are serious in the support we provide our friends. It took many years and many lives to build the foundation on which our alliances now rest and as we move into the 1990's we must strive to continue these efforts. One of the most significant alliance relationships the United States of America fosters in the Western Pacific region is with the Republic of Korea. Korean-American relations actually began in 1883 when Lucius H. Foote was assigned as the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Korea. This initial period of alliance lasted until the middle of 1887, at which time the Chinese government asked that the Charge' at Seoul, George C. Foulk, be recalled for having encouraged the Korean government in a course of action independent of China. When Minister Foute arrived at Seoul in May 1883, the King of Korea "danced with joy". The initial instructions which Foote had to deal with were concerned with the concept of the independence of Korea and extension of trade rights to American citizens. (6:1-3) These same concepts are applicable today and the current alliance relationship we enjoy with the Republic of Korea is primarily based on events of the 1950 era. The single most important factor in achieving national interests in the Republic of Korea is the maintenance of a healthy and vigorous military alliance. This alliance relationship forms the basis of a strong deterrence to hostile attack and enhances the readiness posture of United States Forces. Although some people advocate a major withdrawl of United States military personnel from the Republic of South Korea, we must continue their presence since this area is so vital to our national interests. The United States of America established a mutual defense agreement with South Korea on January 26, 1950. This agree- ment was tested during the early morning hours of June 25, 1950 when the Army of Communist North Korea invaded South Korea, and the world has never been the same since. (1:1) The response to this aggression from North Korea was guick and resolute by the United States as well as the United Nations. It was very clear to President Truman that a Communist success in Korea would only encourage further aggression elsewhere, until no small nation would have the will to resist stronger Communist neighbors. (4:49) As soon as the President received word of the North Korean invasion he sent a message to General MacArthur directing him to evacuate the United States dependents and noncombatants. MacArthur then authorized the Air Force and Navy to take action to prevent the Inchon-Kimpo-Seoul area from falling into unfriendly hands. The President also ordered the U. S. Seventh Fleet to move north from the Philippines to the strait between Formosa and China to fore- stall attack in either direction and prevent the war from spreading. America was rushing to the side of embattled South Korea, but in that Inchon-Kimpo-Seoul area which MacArthur was supposed to guarantee, the move was already too late. (4:49) Early on in this conflict the United States of America proved it would stand by and support its close ally. Thus, the bonding and building of a strong military alliance relationship was taking roots. Throughout the next three years the United States of America would fight tooth and nail with the South Korean people to defend their country from Communist aggression. The following is a brief chronology of significant events in the Korean War: 1950 - 25 June - North Korean Peoples Army crosses 38th Parallel to invade South Korea. 25 June - U.N. Security Council calls for cease-fire in Korea and withdrawl of North Korean troops. 27 June - North Korea refuses resolution; President Truman orders U. S. Air and Sea Units to support South Korea. 30 June - President Truman orders U. S. Ground Forces committed in Korea. 15 September - U.N. Forces land at Inchon. 28 September - Seoul recaptured by U. N. troops. 19 October - Pyongyang, capital of North Korea, captured by U. N. Forces. 4 December - United Nations Forces in full retreat, Pyongyang recaptured by Communists. 1951 - 4 January - Seoul again captured by Communists. 14 March - Seoul recaptured by U. N. Forces for second time. 10 July - Truce talks begin and are off-again on-again throughout 1951. 1952 - 2 December - President-elect Eisenhower tours Korea. 1953 - 27 July - Cease-fire agreement, Korean War ends. 5 August - Exchange of prisoners - "Operations Big Switch" begins at Panmunjom. In the decade that followed the Korean War, American military assistance and economic aid flowed into South Korea in extensive proportions. Cultural exchange also represented an important line between our two peoples. Thus, the United States of America became deeply involved in the complex prob- lems of modernization faced by this troubled nation. We have always been conscious - as have the Koreans - of the 38th Parallel, which divides a people and a world. (7:IX) South Korea and the United States of America are now bound together in a mutual defense treaty. Should there ever again occur an aggression from North Korea the United States of America would automatically be at war. Another important point to consider when discussing the military alliance we share with the Republic of Korea is her strategic location. The Korean Peninsula extends about 1,000 kilometers southward from the Northeast Asian continental land mass. The Japanese Islands of Honshu and Kyushu are located 206 kilometers to the southeast across the Korea Strait (also known as the Tsushima Strait) and the Shandong Peninsula of China is found 190 kilometers to the west. The west coast of the Korean Peninsula is bounded by the Korea Bay to the north and the Yellow Sea to the south; the east coast is bounded by the Sea of Japan (known in Korea as the East Sea). The 8,640 kilometer coastline is highly indented, and off the peninsula lie some 3,579 islands, mostly along the south and west coasts. The northern land border of Korea is formed by the Yalu and Tumen Rivers, which separate it from the Chinese provinces of Jilin and Liaoning. At the end of World War II the peninsula was divided into a northern zone occupied by Soviet Forces and a southern zone occupied by United States Forces. The boundry between the two being formed by the 38th Parallel of latitude. Subseguently, two states - the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) in the north and the Republic of Korea (South Korea) in the south - were establish- ed. At the end of the Korean War in 1953 the boundry between the two was formed by the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The DMZ is a 4,000 meter-wide strip of land that runs along the line of cease-fire from the east to the west coast for a distance of 241 kilometers. (3:50-51) The peninsula, contiguous to the two continental powers of China and Russia adjacent to oceanic Japan, acted for a long time as a land bridge through which continental culture was transmitted to Japan. A peninsular location has both the advantage of easy access to adjacent cultures and the dis- advantage of becoming the target of aggressive neighbors. (3:13) So it is easy to see that from a strategic standpoint the Republic of Korea is a piece of key terrain that must not be lost to Communist expansion. The Republic of Korea is strategically important for several other reasons. One is the sea lines of communication out of Vladivosok are controlled by the Japanese and the Republic of Korea through the open East Sea. Another is the support the Republic of Korea provides to the flank of Japan. And finally, the point that the Republic of Korea is the last non-Communist country on the East Asian land mass makes it a vital strategic area to not only United States of America interests but also to Japan. The Japanese people still remember their history and the strategic rivalry with Russia which exploded in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, won by Japan. Under the peace treaty signed in September 1905, Russia acknowledged Japan's "paramount political, military, and economic interest" in Korea. Two months later Korea was obliged to become a Japanese protectorate. Thereafter, a large number of Koreans organized groups to engage in educational and reform movements, but by then Japanese dominance in Korea was a reality. Japan annexed Korea as a colony on August 22, 1910. (2:12) Some of the protection the Japanese provide to the Republic of Korea today is in the form of United States basing rights in their country. These basing rights hinge on the fact that the United States is supporting the United Nations Command in the Republic of Korea. Some feel that if the United States of America made a major withdrawl of military personnel and support from the Republic of Korea that it is unlikely the United Nations would remain; therefore, the potential loss of United States basing rights in Japan exists. The strong economic growth the Republic of Korea has made in the last several years is another significant factor which must be considered when deciding the fate of the strong military alliance we now share. Agriculture once occupied a predominant share of Korea's industrial structure until the recent industrialization of the economy. The Republic of Korea is now one of the United States of America's major trading partners. This fact is not hard to discover when shopping for clothing, audio and video eguipment as well as automobiles. The "Made in Korea" marking is slowly becoming as routine as the "Made in Japan" or "Made in Hong Kong" stamps. Structural change in the Republic of Korea is reflected in the composition of her export commodities. Export of manufactured goods comprised 62.4 percent of the total in 1966 and thereafter, the portion increased substantially to 86.0 percent in 1971, 89.8 percent in 1976, and 95.4 percent in 1985. Heavy and chemical product exports made rapid strides to occupy a larger and larger share in export composition. The portion of manufactured goods increased to 58.2 percent in 1985 from 15.3 percent in 1966, primarily as a result of increases in electronic production and shipbuilding. (3:369) Emphasis was shifted from guantity-oriented to guality oriented growth from 1980, and various industrial sectors were subject to extensive reorganization. The heavy and chemical industries in particular were restructured and the government also discouraged overinvesting in these sectors. Industries such as power generating facilities, telephone communications, diesel engines, copper refineries, and heavy electrical eguipment were also either restructured or programmed into specialized production systems. (1:370) These dramatic changes which are taking place in the Republic of Korea are significant with regard to her status in the world economic market. Many feel that the Republic of Korea will house one of the top world economies by the year 1992. Economic prosperity is on the rise and the world is watching as the small, once war torn, country emerges on to the world scene as an economic leader. The Republic of Korea has grown rapidly in the last several years and will continue to progress steadily into the next decade. Another significant achievement the Republic of Korea has made is successfully hosting the 1988 Summer Olympic Games in Seoul. On September 30, 1981, the International Olympic Committee meeting in Baden-Baden, West Germany gave Seoul the nod in a 52 to 27 vote over the Japanese city of Nagoya. This allowed the Republic of Korea to be the second Asian nation to host the Olympics, following Japan. Seoul's success in winning the bid for the Olympics was solid proof of her inter- national recognition and of the Republic of Korea's capacity and potential for growth as well as an incentive for the youth of their nation to be proud of accomplishments they have made in the athletic arena. As with most of the Olympic games, the games of the XXIVth Olympiad in Seoul were not held without political unrest. North Korea made strenuous efforts to undermine Seoul's bid, but the Republic of Korea overcame these obstacles. The Olympic Games were an overwhelming success and some 13,000 athletes and officials from 161 countries competed. The games ran over a period that included three weekends and two Korean national holidays. The games of the XXIVth Olympiad provided the Republic of Korea a rare opportunity to display to the world its own special cultural talents and treasures making for international understanding and friendship. The United States of America was surely proud of her strong ally as the press reported to the world the strong bonds we have between our two nations. The Olympic games also provided a vehicle with which to show the vast amount of the American public what a vital area the Republic of Korea is to the United States of Americas national interests. Although the Republic of Korea is making great economic and cultural strides her internal military establishment is far inferior to that of North Korea. Finances alone will not solve this imbalance in her ability to deter agression from North Korea. The North started the Korean War in 1950 in the hope of communizing the South, and their basic military strategy has been basically the same ever since. In the immediate wake of the Armistice Agreement in 1953, it began to rebuld its military strength in a renewed pursuit of unifica- tion through communization of the South by force. In 1962 their rearmament efforts were greatly stepped up when the so-called four-point military policy, including "the arming of the entire people" was adopted. North Korea has since been frantically and ostentatiously expanding their military might. (1:324) Committed to a policy of peaceful unification, the Republic of Korea has emphasized economic development and the improvement of living standards to a greater extent than armaments. This has resulted in the serious military imbal- ance between the North and the South. The United States of America provided a sizeable military presence during these years of economic build up and thus allowed the Republic of Korea to expand in other areas. The prospects for the Republic of Korea to catch up militarily with the North are bright, but it will take a few more years to do so. During the next few years it will be critical to maintain the United States military presence in the Republic of Korea. The recent decline in the defense budget is driving a trend toward the reduction of military expenditures wherever possible. During this period of tight fiscal constraints it has become apparent to some that if we reduce the number of United States military personnel serving overseas we can reduce the defense budget. There are those that feel by making a major reduction of troop strength in the Republic of Korea we can significantly reduce defense spending; but, we must be very cautious when we look at ways to cut back on military spending. The strategy of having forward deployed units available to make a guick response to crisis is sound. In many cases it is less expensive to house United States forces in host nations than it would be to house them in the United States of America and then deploy them as needed. The loss in response time and the amount of assets available to move the reguired force would far outweigh the cost of keeping them permanently in a host nation. A major reduction of United States military personnel in the Republic of Korea would send a strong negative signal to our allies throughout the entire world. Alliance relation- ships are the cornerstone to the deterrence of hostile acts by the North and must be maintained. It has taken many lives and many years to build the foundation on which our alliance now rests and as we move into the 1990's we must strive to con- tinue these efforts. To do anything less would be a severe injustice to those who have gone before us and weaken the deterrent effect that this alliance so strongly portrays. A growing number of anti-American riots by students in Seoul suggests that the United States is meddling in the affairs of the Republic of Korea and should stop. There are a number of people in both the United States as well as the Republic of Korea who believe that the American military presence is the cause of this civil unrest; however, one must realize that Seoul is a city of approximately 10 million people and when a handful of students stage a confrontation in front of the national press it may not be as significant as the cameras show it to be. The vast majority of the Korean populace still supports the United States military presence and favors the continuation of our strong alliance relation- ship. The healthy friendships we have forged in the Republic of Korea have stood the test of time and should be maintained today and into the future. The Republic of Korea is emerging on the world scene as both an economic power and as an ever increasing important geo- graphical region; therefore, the United States must view with concern the continued close military working relationsip that exists between our two nations. Many feel that the Republic of Korea should shoulder more of the economic burden for its defense. Increased military spending by the Republic of Korea would certainly bolster public opinion and be appealing but with it might come an attempt to make a major reduction in the American troop strength which would adversely effect our alliance relationship. Three key points must be considered prior to making any major United States military personnel cuts in the Republic of Korea. The first is the signal it would send to our allies worldwide. A major decrease in American forces would show a lesser commitment to our allies and soften the strong relation- ships we have worked so hard to establish over the years. Secondly, the deterrent effect would surely be weakened and any weakness perceived by our adversaries to the north would increase the possibility of a strike. Finally, and probably one of the most important points would be the negative impact our own personnel would suffer by a decreased readiness posture. Training with our allies on their soil is a point that shouldn't be taken lightly. If the need arises to defend United States interests in the Republic of Korea we must be fully prepared for a guick response. The only way to stay alert is to continue the American military presence at current strengths and show the world that we are ready, willing, and able to counter any threat along with our allies. Some may guest ion whether the threat from the North is real or imaginary. As has been made clear time and time again, the fundamental policy of the Republic of Korea toward the guestion of the reunification of the divided land is that there should be peace before unification. On the other hand, North Korea has made no bones about its ultimate goal of unifying the land through armed force. Its basic strategy is to consolidate North Korea as a base for revolution in the South pending the arrival of the "historial moment" when it will create a second front deep in South Korea with guerrilla forces, and at the same time launch a decisive thrust across the truce line. (1:319) It is for these reasons that the United States military presence is necessary. The tilting of the existing power balance in Korea by a premature withdrawl of United States troops would certainly prove an invitation to North Korea to invade the South. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Alexander, Bevin. Korea - The First War We Lost. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1986. 2. Bunge, Frederica, ed., South Korea - A Country Study. Washington, D.C.: American University, 1982. 3. Korean Overseas Information Services, A Handbook of Korea, Seoul: Seould International Publishing House, 1987. 4. Leckie, Robert. Conflict. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1962. 5. Marshall, S. L. A. The Military History of the Korean War. New York: Franklin Watts, Inc., 1963. 6. McCune, George, ed., Korean-American Relations, Vol 1. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1951. 7. Palmer, Spencer, ed., Korean-American Relations, Vol II. Berkeley, Los Anglees: University of California Press, 1963. 8. Rees, David, Korea: The Limited War. New York: St. Martins Press, 1964.
